Do you like VLC on your iPhone or iPad? You don't yet have it installed, but want to? Well, then you'd better be quick about it, as some VLC contributors are unhappy with the fact that VLC is distributed through Apple's App Store, violating the GPL the video player is licensed under. At least, that's what some think.

That's because of copyright on the trademarks and such, which is something else entirely.

So does it make it ok to not allow redistribution of the binary (and remain GPL compliant) when you use a trademark in the package name? If the submitter used his own company name, he was no longer obliged to ensure that binary can be freely distributed, right?

I'm inclined to think "Program" in the license means mostly the source code.

So does it make it ok to not allow redistribution of the binary (and remain GPL compliant) when you use a trademark in the package name? If the submitter used his own company name, he was no longer obliged to ensure that binary can be freely distributed, right?

The binaries are free to be redistributed, as soon as you strip the trademarks out of them. You can take your RHEL installation, rm -f /etc/awesomeprotectedtrademarkslulz, image it, and send it out to whoever you want (with source access, of course). Since it's easier to just strip them from the source packages, that's what CentOS does.